Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       11-15-2012, 9:15 AM Reply   
So much for transparency. I feel the Administration is trying to create a diversion on so many levels to take our eye's off the truth,

Example: Funny how its so convenient that petraeus's affair comes out as we are all still waiting for answers about Benghazi! First things first America. We will get to Petraeus and his affair trust me. But first we need to get to the Truth of what happened in Benghazi.

http://news.yahoo.com/start-voice-pe...232314516.html
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       11-15-2012, 9:26 AM Reply   
Not to mention the Palestinians' rocket attacks. Clearly the Muslim brotherhood is trying to divert unwanted scrutiny from their Manchurian candidate.

And can you believe that Erik Cantor was in on petreus too? Makes you wonder how deep the Freemasons really have their tentacles into our government.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 9:45 AM Reply   
I feel that the govt is always withholding information for various reasons both legit and not so legit. I think that Republicans have a hard-on for Benghazi solely for political purposes. And it makes you guys look like a bunch of shrieking Fox News puppets. So just keep it up and become more irrelevant.

I also don't think that extra-marital affairs shouldn't have anything to do with a military person's career. On the whole it appears that Petaeus served his country well and it's a disgrace that we rejected him so quickly over something that is more personal than anything else. I'm sure the Republicans would be happy to throw a patriot to the wolves if it suited their politcal narative.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       11-15-2012, 9:49 AM Reply   
They know the Majority of Americans will chew on a "Affair scandal" for months while over looking a the bigger picture.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       11-15-2012, 9:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I also don't think that extra-marital affairs shouldn't have anything to do with a military person's career. On the whole it appears that Petaeus served his country well and it's a disgrace that we rejected him so quickly over something that is more personal than anything else. I'm sure the Republicans would be happy to throw a patriot to the wolves if it suited their politcal narative.
two problems with that:

1. UCMJ says adultery is a crime. I agree that that's silly, but it is what it is.
2. head of CIA in a compromised position is problematic because it exposes him to blackmail, at least theoretically. Not that much different than if he had a (legal) gambling or alcohol problem.

But yeah, it's really sad to see him thrown under the bus, and also sad to see the sexist way his co-participant in the affair is being treated (there is no male counterpart to harlot).
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       11-15-2012, 10:00 AM Reply   
THIS ISSUE transcends political Affiliation Dem or republican. When our leaders lie to us we need to root out the truth regardless who is running the show.
I'm sure our administration would love to turn this into a Dem Vs Republican argument one side blaming the other to AGAIN take your eye off the subject.
The TRUTH is the truth regardless what side your on. If your not interested in The truth on this subject and only see it as one side attacking the other then I don't know what to tell you. Keep drinking the Kool Aid
Old     (Truekaotik)      Join Date: Jun 2012       11-15-2012, 10:05 AM Reply   
Well we knew something was going on in Libya when the President repeatedly push it was a movie on YouTube 6 people in the world have seen.. how many people believed that? Then months later he admits it was a terrorist attack.. It was 9/11 for Pete sake.. Grrrr
They are gonna sweep it under the rug like they have done with so many things..
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-15-2012, 10:15 AM Reply   
absolutely a cover up

the top brass is being strong armed by theChicago con man to keep quiet

he sent ice to keep spewing the lie that this was all due to a video

keep drinking the coolaide that it's all republican tactics......history will show how corrupt Obama really is....
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       11-15-2012, 10:18 AM Reply   
it's actually quite simple.
Benghazi was spun hard to look like a spontaneous protest against the film because it would look terrible on the eve of the election as a successful, coordinated AQ, 9/11, terror attack on sovereign US soil. so they went forth with the youtube story with full force... and the media lapped it up (except the evil fox news). Petraeus is not a big fan of O, and I think they were planning to use this affair (as unfortunate as it is) as a blackmail to get him to stay in line. It worked for a few days, until he said, f-that, let's air it out (because in the end he is a stand up guy who'll admit his mistake).
Now the media's turned to full bore character assassination to completely discredit any testimony he gives, also to keep us dubmy wumby's distracted. The coverage will be in the neighborhood of 5:1 sex scandal to terror attack spin scandal.
Are the republicans salivating over this, you bet. is it just another example of an administration that will use all tools available to keep their hands clean and appear as if they have a clue what the hell they're doing, you bet.

Here's another installment of the "mirror post" exercise:
"I feel that the govt is always withholding information for various reasons both legit and not so legit. I think that Democrats have a hard-on for Petraeus solely for political purposes. And it makes you guys look like a bunch of shrieking MSNBC puppets. So just keep it up and become more irrelevant.

I also don't think that extra-marital affairs shouldn't have anything to do with a military person's career. On the whole it appears that Petraeus served his country well and it's a disgrace that we have destroyed his credibility so quickly over something that is more personal than anything else. I'm sure the Democrats would be happy to throw a patriot to the wolves if it suited their politcal narative. "
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 11:03 AM Reply   
Snyder, I'm not seeing any Democrats shrieking about Petraeus and I wouldn't have a clue if MSNBC was saying anything about it. Your flip the words doesn't really work all the time. I was responding to Grant's claim that the right will get to the Petraeus issue in time.

As far as him resigning, I don't know whether he was pressured for legitimate reasons to quit, under his own volition, or an administration witch hunt. I was just commenting that I don't think that extra-marital affairs should be an issue, and that his outstanding work in Iraq should not be overshadowed as a result. If as shawndoggie claims, affairs are a UCMJ violation then I guess his quitting was a necessary formality.

You guys are really loving the kool-aid thing now that you are addicted to it. I find it hard to understand how worrying about issues that affect the nation substantially instead of irrelevant stuff like Petraeus and Benghazi is now your idea of kool-aid. But as snyder has demonstrated, you can play flip the issues regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       11-15-2012, 11:14 AM Reply   
Funny as i was reading this, the question was do we think this whole thing is a cover up? Of course the one person who everyone knows leans way left comes out attacking Republicans. Of course it's a cover up, they are still saying they are putting the pieces together to find out what happened. Whatever, they know what happened, we know they tried to blame it on some lame video nobody has ever seen and we know they are still dodging every question when asked about it. The thing that irritates me the most is the fact that someone on the left can't just call a spade a spade.

Come on john for once just tell the truth, Not only was the whole thing handled terribly the cover up was even handled worse! Just say it, come on you can do it........
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       11-15-2012, 11:22 AM Reply   
My issue is this: The WH sent Susan Rice on a tour to provide knowingly false information.

On another flip issue, am I confused that some Dems blamed the Bush Admin for not following up on original 9/11 warnings? In Benghazi, it seems that the current admin just sat there and watched it happen while others tried to provide aid and were relieved of duty.

The timing of the Petraeus blow-up is odd at best. I mean, there were quite a few people who knew what was up when there was only 5,000 to 10,000 pages of evidence.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 11:50 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by poser007 View Post
Come on john for once just tell the truth, Not only was the whole thing handled terribly the cover up was even handled worse! Just say it, come on you can do it........
Here's the absolute truth Flight... I don't know exactly how this rates on the cover-up scale wrt how much covering up the govt does as the course of normal operation. Nor do I know whether they were covering up from the beginning or simply not rushing to make accusations.

It is also absolutely true that what happened in Bengahzi means very little wrt the state of the nation and things that are important to the vast majority of US citizens. It isn't going to change the price of gas, affect the stock market, unemplyment figures, the cost of healthcare, raise or lower anyone's taxes, or have any impact on national security. So what is important about it? I can only imagine that someone is going to respond that it impacts our faith in the office of the President. Well, that was shot down long ago.

Also not sure why you claim that the stupid movie was never seen by anyone when protests were erupting in the ME over it. Sure that movie meant nothing to us because we are used to crap like that. But it definitely had an impact on people in the ME.
Old    Seth Rozic (RedRum)      Join Date: Nov 2010       11-15-2012, 11:56 AM Reply   
Of course this is a cover up. America wanted to know about Benghazi before the election. I wanted to know. I find it extremely disrespectful of the 0bama administration to hide behind a facade of fabricated lies for political gain, blaming it on a youtube video, when 4 Americans lives were unnecessarily lost. Then Susan Rice is directed to go on tour spreading false information to try and save face, and then trying to cloud the water with the Patreus thing???? C'mon, how stupid do you have to be not to see this? I, for one, can call a spade a spade. The one thing that has surprised me thus far is that Bush hasn't been blamed for this yet.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 12:12 PM Reply   
So why should we care? Because Romney would have balanced the budget, downsized the govt, and rescued the middle class if only we cared enough about Benghazi? Because Romney would have revealed all the secrets of the govt if only we demonstrated we cared by being outraged?

What exactly are people hoping will be revealed that is so important? That the adminstration was warned it needed more security and didn't provide it? I think that already came out. That the embassy was a coverup for CIA operations? Seems like that has already come out. Does the CIA need to maintain a web site telling the American public what it does at all times? Come on guys... tell us what is lurking in the shadows that is going to be a huge revelation. You must have some idea of why this is so important.
Old    J D (jeff_mn)      Join Date: Jul 2009       11-15-2012, 1:24 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
So why should we care? Because Romney would have balanced the budget, downsized the govt, and rescued the middle class if only we cared enough about Benghazi? Because Romney would have revealed all the secrets of the govt if only we demonstrated we cared by being outraged?

What exactly are people hoping will be revealed that is so important? That the adminstration was warned it needed more security and didn't provide it? I think that already came out. That the embassy was a coverup for CIA operations? Seems like that has already come out. Does the CIA need to maintain a web site telling the American public what it does at all times? Come on guys... tell us what is lurking in the shadows that is going to be a huge revelation. You must have some idea of why this is so important.
"Why is it important that our countries leaders tell the truth?"

- Derp
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-15-2012, 1:28 PM Reply   
It's important because it is yet another piece of the puzzle that proves Obama is corrupt and full of crap. Proving that will become necessary when he and the media yet again ,blame the house for every little thing that is wrong with the state of the union. If he is exposed as the Chicago con man that he is, perhaps the media could put a little pressure on him to actually lead, instead of using his end around bullying tactics..........

I even laughed as I typed it. He is incapable of learning and leading


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 1:32 PM Reply   
That isn't the question Jeff. It's a given that our leaders are neither truthful or forthcoming. I'm asking why this event is so significant and unique?

Oh wait all I have to do is go to foxnews.com today and I see that they are pulling the right wing strings. That is probably the only answer I'm going to get.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       11-15-2012, 1:33 PM Reply   
Dismiss, divert and sling mud. Sounds about right. If a republican president did this, people would be marching in the streets.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       11-15-2012, 1:38 PM Reply   
So we all agree that OUR government has lied to Us all and is Still lying to us! The left and Right can agree that their is a cover up in effect as we speak.

So my question is How Does that feel?
Where are the real Patriots ?
How much crap can we all be spoon fed before we say Enough?
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       11-15-2012, 1:39 PM Reply   
If you don't stand for something You will fall for anything!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 1:47 PM Reply   
If lying was the most important issue to the America people neither Romney or Obama would have been elected. And they sure as heck wouldn't be watching Fox News. People accept the inevitable and work with what's left. Or they are happy to be lied to if the lie is what they want to hear.
Old    Seth Rozic (RedRum)      Join Date: Nov 2010       11-15-2012, 2:36 PM Reply   
What is it with you and Fox News? Is it because they stand their ground and won't be a Liberal lap dog like the other networks that you have to keep bringing them up by dragging them down?

You keep asking why is it important that we know the facts, why should be care?
Well let me ask you, why exactly is it that you think we shouldn't care? Why is it NOT important? Why should we as a nation not be upset?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 2:57 PM Reply   
OK Seth, answer the question. What are the revelations that you expect to be uncovered. Fox News obviously has taught you to believe that this is significant. Tell us what Fox News has revealed to you that explains why it's significant. What it is about me and Fox News is that I believe that it's a farce of a news agency that mainly exists to make a lot of money pandering to idiots with deception.

I have CNN, MSN, and Fox on my favorites bar. Nearly 100% of the time the main Fox headline every single day is something disparaging to the office of the President, where the other two are simply reporting the news. You don't think it's pretty transparent when the accusations are aligned exclusively by political party? Paul is right, if a Republican president was involved in this sort of thing there would be left wing idiots raising a stink. I think they are full of crap too. However, I certainly wouldn't make that point to justify me doing it too.
Old    Brad Walker (humboldt9)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 3:00 PM Reply   
It's important because we lost four brave American's who were serving their country admirably. These same four American's have families, wives, children, grandchildren. Don't you think they have the right to know the truth? Sure Benghazi may have nothing to do with the state or our nation at home, but it sure does have importance with regard to our overall National security and preventing future terrorist attacks.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       11-15-2012, 3:01 PM Reply   
John, did you really say Benghazi is irrelevant? wow

The President refuses aid to a US ambassador under attack by terrorists on sovereign US soil, who he has been known to dislike, then covers it up for an election, and you think that is irrelevant?

Yes they are all liars, but when they get caught in lies of significant magnitude, they are dealt with.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       11-15-2012, 3:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
if a Republican president was involved in this sort of thing there would be left wing idiots raising a stink. I think they are full of crap too.
And CNN and MSN would be saying disparaging things and FOX would just be reporting the news.

Bias is in all media, and has been for the majority of my life. I don't know why we talk about it like we all don't already know this. All news programming is fact + interpretation. They all report the same basic facts for the most part, its in the interpretations that they are different. Learn to discern fact from interpretation and it doesn't really matter where you get your news. They all play the same game, so its funny that we like it from those who align with us and despise it from those who do not.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       11-15-2012, 3:13 PM Reply   
Why do people feel the need to defend the administration? It's like so many people are so quick to accept the governments "story" and if you question it in any way your labeled a wing nut! tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. It's like people feel the need to stand up for the government! The way I see it the government is a Big Boy they can answer for them selfs they don't need you to argue for them. But some how these people are self appointed spin doctors!
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       11-15-2012, 3:43 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by humboldt9 View Post
It's important because we lost four brave American's who were serving their country admirably. These same four American's have families, wives, children, grandchildren. Don't you think they have the right to know the truth? Sure Benghazi may have nothing to do with the state or our nation at home, but it sure does have importance with regard to our overall National security and preventing future terrorist attacks.
Estimates are that 3 Americans die EVERY HOUR as a result of not having insurance. And yet Obamacare is evil because it's imperfect or expensive?!? I'm all for respecting human life... But that means ALL lives... Not just the ones that serve your political purposes.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       11-15-2012, 4:01 PM Reply   
^^ LOL! Lack of health care is now the cause of death.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 4:02 PM Reply   
I'm not defending the administration. I'm questioning the judgement of people who only want the truth if there is a partisan political purpose behind. I'm questioning why this is so important. We already know that a security upgrade was requested and not fulfilled before the attack. What is the revelation that is not revealed and why do you believe there is more to the story?

I have respect for people who seek the truth for principle's sake, but that is not what's going on here and I think that is obvious. It isn't even clear this is a lie of significant magnitude. Even blaming it on a protest wouldn't change anything if the issue was refusing a security upgrade. What's interesting about you guys is that you don't even have a conspiracy story to go behind your suspicions. IOW, you've all been told to be outraged but you're still not sure why.
Old     (Truekaotik)      Join Date: Jun 2012       11-15-2012, 4:05 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I'm not defending the administration. I'm questioning the judgement of people who only want the truth if there is a partisan political purpose behind. I'm questioning why this is so important. We already know that a security upgrade was requested and not fulfilled before the attack. What is the revelation that is not revealed and why do you believe there is more to the story?

I have respect for people who seek the truth for principle's sake, but that is not what's going on here and I think that is obvious. It isn't even clear this is a lie of significant magnitude. Even blaming it on a protest wouldn't change anything if the issue was refusing a security upgrade. What's interesting about you guys is that you don't even have a conspiracy story to go behind your suspicions. IOW, you've all been told to be outraged but you're still not sure why.
Your gonna try and bring Obama care into the discussion??? Lol this has to do with a known act of war... Spin doctors for sure Grant
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-15-2012, 4:07 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
John, did you really say Benghazi is irrelevant? wow

The President refuses aid to a US ambassador under attack by terrorists on sovereign US soil, who he has been known to dislike, then covers it up for an election, and you think that is irrelevant?

Yes they are all liars, but when they get caught in lies of significant magnitude, they are dealt with.
What is your proof of any of this??? To imply that Obama allowed Stevens to be killed because he "disliked" him, is the biggest load of sheet I have ever heard.

And then I see more intellectual dishonesty from Cliff. Be truthful Cliff...If they released a full report showing that there was no cover-up, would your trust level for Obama rise any? No need to answer, I know what your response would be.

But you guys who think that there will ever be transparency between the intelligence community and the American public (regardless of who is President, head of the Intelligence Oversight Committee, etc.) have your head stuffed so far up your ass, reasoning with you is pointless.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 4:14 PM Reply   
True, I think you relied to or quoted the wrong person. But since you posted it at me, exactly what nation are we at war with now that the embassy was attacked? Libya?

BTW, even McCain apparently doesn't find Benghazi any more interesting than a partisan talking point. Nor the other Republicans. Three Republicans vs seven Democrats at the administration briefing. Apparently they had no questions to ask. I guess they thought that Fox News was more interesting and would ask the questions for them.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...cnn/?hpt=hp_t1
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       11-15-2012, 4:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr
John, did you really say Benghazi is irrelevant? wow

The President refuses aid to a US ambassador under attack by terrorists on sovereign US soil, who he has been known to dislike, then covers it up for an election, and you think that is irrelevant?

Yes they are all liars, but when they get caught in lies of significant magnitude, they are dealt with.
Quote:
What is your proof of any of this???
Not sure which fact you believe is debatable other than the motivation for the cover-up, which shouldn't matter much.

Are you so far polarized that this incident doesn't stink to you in the slightest? Honestly?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 4:37 PM Reply   
Jason, what's the lie and what's the cover up? Blaming it on protests vs waiting for more specific accusations until later doesn't amount to much. What difference does it make whether it was a planned terrorist act vs a spontaneous unplanned attack?

Or if I understand your post correctly there is little more information to be revealed and Obama's mistake was to not provide more security when requested prior to the attack? Because that much we already know. What we don't know is why more security wasn't provided or even if it was reasonable to presume that we could have predicted how uch would have been necessary.

But you specifically said that he refused the ambassader while under attack and all of the info I've seen refutes that claim. Perhaps you have a link to info that supports your point?
Old    Seth Rozic (RedRum)      Join Date: Nov 2010       11-15-2012, 4:38 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
OK Seth, answer the question. What are the revelations that you expect to be uncovered. Fox News obviously has taught you to believe that this is significant. Tell us what Fox News has revealed to you that explains why it's significant. What it is about me and Fox News is that I believe that it's a farce of a news agency that mainly exists to make a lot of money pandering to idiots with deception.

I have CNN, MSN, and Fox on my favorites bar. Nearly 100% of the time the main Fox headline every single day is something disparaging to the office of the President, where the other two are simply reporting the news. You don't think it's pretty transparent when the accusations are aligned exclusively by political party? Paul is right, if a Republican president was involved in this sort of thing there would be left wing idiots raising a stink. I think they are full of crap too. However, I certainly wouldn't make that point to justify me doing it too.

I want it uncovered why support was not granted to those under attack. Was it politically motivated? Would it have ruined chance at re-election had the commander in chief authorized support and it went horribly awry? Was it something else, if not political, then what? I expect those responsible to be relieved of their duties. I believe it shows weakness of our country to have not taken action. If it is the POTUS and his cabinet are to blame for this weakness, then so be it. Get them out of there. I think it is BS that those in the armed forces that were on the scene and decided to take action were relieved of their duties. They were doing what was right, and trying to save lives. That is what I expect to be uncovered. I don't care if those involved are Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, men, women, black, white, purple, yellow, blue, green.....whatever, they need to pay the price. We cannot afford to be viewed as weak to the rest of the world, especially with the threat of Muslim extremist terrorism on the rise.

There are always two sides to a story, and I think the American people deserve the opportunity to have both presented, in whatever manner they choose. I don't align myself with Fox News, MSNBC, or any of the networks, so do not lecture me on what I was taught to believe. I take what I hear from all the sides, and render my own conclusions. I have my big boy pants and can think for myself, which is more than I can say for a lot of people, on both sides of the aisle.

Now. Please answer my questions. Why exactly is it that you think we shouldn't care? Why is it NOT important? Why should we, as a nation, not be upset? Why is getting to the bottom of the way the Benghazi attacks were handled irrelevant?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 4:47 PM Reply   
Maybe if it's so important to you, then you should do some research.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118500
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...cision-making/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/...ine/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/...ine/index.html
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       11-15-2012, 5:13 PM Reply   
Seth: Great Post! I agree 100%
Old    Seth Rozic (RedRum)      Join Date: Nov 2010       11-15-2012, 5:27 PM Reply   
Why are you ducking my questions?

Do you not find it strange that the President bobbled the topic during the debate? Do you not find it strange that Susan Rice produced misleading interviews? The President's coming to the rescue of Rice much like a big brother defending a little sister by saying "stop picking on her" seems to undermine the credibility of a person set to take on the responsibility of Secretary of State...

Ah, forget it, I don't care if you answer my questions or not. Guess we will agree to disagree.
Hey, at least we both agree that wakeboarding is fun.....
Old     (Truekaotik)      Join Date: Jun 2012       11-15-2012, 5:30 PM Reply   
Agree as well Seth! Well posted.. Some people just have no clue and are excellent "wanna be" politicians on here... Just proves how far someone will go to not see the real un answered questions in front of them.... Really McCain? Your gonna bring the one person everyone (all media) makes fun of up? He rode coat tails into his current position.. FACT..
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 6:02 PM Reply   
Seth, I thought I answered your questions before you asked them. It's not important because there is no evidence of something that's covered up. Libya was a dangerous place and it's hard to know how much security would have prevented the deaths or created the unintended consequence of even more people dying. Why should Obama want to address it during the debate? And why would the administration want to jump to proclaiming it was an attack by a specific group when the information was not there? I'm sure you righties would have been thrilled if we had an armed drone mowing down everyone in the streets in front of the embassy. But of course Obama failed you when he didn't have one handy.

Truekaotik, McCain is one of the GOP media figures making a big deal about this. While I'll agree with your assessment of him the fact is that the Republicans showed little interest in attending the briefing and getting answers. Perhaps it better to let the Fox News tools handle the rabble rousing. You guys all know that's where your marching orders come from. Who else is making a big deal out of this? I'm not too up with the conspiracy theory web sites, but it wouldn't surprise me if the stink of Faux News keeps them off of it.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       11-15-2012, 6:51 PM Reply   
To the people that are always saying "Where is your Proof" Often even when you have the smoking gun its not enough! I Don't think a guy that punches a clock and works a normal 9-5 in going to Un cover what Washington dosen't want you and I to see. So Don't hold your breath on the so called "PROOF" Does any of this pass the smell test with you? what does your gut tell you?

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

BTW : Your Kool Aid is ready
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 7:07 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
...it wouldn't surprise me if the stink of Faux News keeps them off of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
Does any of this pass the smell test with you?
Old     (Truekaotik)      Join Date: Jun 2012       11-15-2012, 7:18 PM Reply   
Your arguing the fact that "what would it change if we had more security?".. We don't know BUT, what took place for 5 hours after at the embassy was without reinforcement and the hours after that when troops disobeying direct orders and helping ( also a real document and LOST lives) save civilians and hoof back to their stronghold with no help is OK with you? It's known we had ships in air strike distance, it's also public knowledge there was a drone watching it take place! They used some of the footage on YOUR news stations! Come on man.. You have NO doubts about our contry's declining super power? Wow

Last edited by Truekaotik; 11-15-2012 at 7:25 PM.
Old    Brad Walker (humboldt9)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 7:39 PM Reply   
Regardless of political party, this incident smells like a Pat Tillman cover up except on an entirely different level. IMO...
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       11-15-2012, 7:43 PM Reply   
intellectual dishonesty?

hmmm
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       11-15-2012, 7:57 PM Reply   
Isn't there a fiscal cliff coming up? Shouldn't our attention be There? Something that matters to our economy?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-15-2012, 7:59 PM Reply   
Boy you guys are noobs at this tin hat stuff. Fist of all any good tin hat worth his salt already knows what the cover-up is. They just don't know how to convince everyone else that it's real. You guys are upset that we can't see the cover up that you don't know what's covered up. Upset that the US didn't order an airstrike on Benghazi? There isn't a face palm biggest enough.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       11-15-2012, 8:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

BTW : Your Kool Aid is ready
Where does one go to find these bogus Jefferson quotes?

Not Monticello, apparently:

"We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny," or any of its listed variations."

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...bertyquotation

Or could it be.... a coverup?
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       11-15-2012, 9:32 PM Reply   
I wonder if a phrase credited incorrectly invalidates the meaning.....

Old    Markj (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       11-15-2012, 11:43 PM Reply   
It seems obvious to me that the Obama administration is taking their time so they can reverse engineer their response to why things went the way that they did. They are poster children for character flaws. What ever happened to real men who possessed real balls and could withstand the heat, not to mention answer simple questions honestly?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-16-2012, 2:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
Not sure which fact you believe is debatable other than the motivation for the cover-up, which shouldn't matter much.

Are you so far polarized that this incident doesn't stink to you in the slightest? Honestly?
Mainly the part of you implying that Obama let Stevens die because he "disliked" him. Didn't Obama appoint Stevens as ambassador? If he disliked him, why did he appoint him to the position? I guess more conspiracy theory fodder.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       11-16-2012, 9:03 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by barry View Post
I wonder if a phrase credited incorrectly invalidates the meaning.....

Its meaning? Of course not, the words are the words. Its importance? Most definitely. I'm going to give a lot more weight and consideration to the things that T.J. actually said than I am to the musings G. West (sorry G, no offense).
Old    Rich (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       11-16-2012, 9:32 AM Reply   
http://www.classwarfareexists.com/re...#axzz2CPLq4t1O
Old    Terry Redfearn (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       11-16-2012, 1:44 PM Reply   
We were lied to about Benghazi, without a doubt.

we do not have enough information to say why. It could have been for the president to avoid answering for his failed foreign policy. He said AQ was "on their heals" and "dessimated." The truth is the overthrow of Ghadaffi was a mistake and the "Arab Spring" bad for America.

It could have been over weapons, surface to air missles supplied to the rebels that have come up missing.

Patraeus' lover said it was over prisoners taken by CIA and housed at the annex under O's watch in violation of his 2009 Presidential order forvbidding it.

Or, something that has yet to come out according to Patraeus' lover's father.

McCain skipped the WH news conferrence because he is not going to be lied to any more. He has made up his mind that a bipartisan investigation is in order. He wants to hear testimony not spin.

We know:

2006 Patraeus meets his lover

2008-2009 she is embedded and writes her book. The affair is not a secret on base.

Sept. 2010 Patraeus undergoes and exhaustive background check by the FBI and is confirmed as head of the CIA in spite of the blackmail possiblities because of his affair.

CNN interviewed the brother of the blind sheik in Cairo on Sept 10 and he said he was going to protest the nezxt day in Cairo at the embassy over the use of predator drones and the release of his brother, 1993 WTC bomber conspirator.

Ex Seal Tyrone Woods is in Benghazi looking for weapons. Senate report after Benghazi reports that there are 20,000 Surface to air missiles missing from the fall of the Syrian Gov.
Woods is housed in an annex less than a mile from the embaassy.

The attack on the consulate was reported by those present as an attack and not a protest to the State Department. Woods goes to help against orders. The attack lasts over 7 hours. 4 hours in an AQ affiliated group claims responsibility. . Doherty musters up a CIA group from Tripoli, CHARTERS A PLANE, gets held up at customs, makes it to the consulate in time to take a position on the roof and along with Woods faces 200 rebels with mortars, RPGs and vehicle mounted anti aircraft guns. and are killed by a mortar after killing 60.

The Commander in Chief in extremists group are stationed in Italy, trained for the job and prepared to help but are not sent.


The President makes a veiled reference to terrorists attacks in the rose garden "acts of Terror" but refused to call it a terroist attack in a 60 mins interview where he is asked specifically. CBS holds that portion of the interview, until a week before the election.

Susan Rice goes on the Sunday talk show curcuit and says its from the Video and that the riot in Cairo was also over the video. O' knows this is a lie and sends her out there anyway. The next week the WH press secretary says its over a video. For the next weeks Hilary and the president make reference to the video.

A CIA section Chief admits that the attack was a terrorist attack.

Patraeus says it was over a video.

Oct. 26 Patraeus' lover makes a speach and says that she knows why the annex was attacked and it was because the CIA had taken local prisoners.

Hillary declines the offer to speak to the Senate investigators and instead goes wine tasting in Australia. . Patraeus self discloses his affair.

We need answers and the will only come from a bipartisan committee.

Benghazi is not irrelevent or a Rep. generated issue.

There are tons of unanswered questions and the WH has left us with innaccuate statements. Repeatedly.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       11-16-2012, 1:46 PM Reply   
These questions will require only a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

1. Did Susan Rice make a media tour, stating the Benghazi incident was in response to a YouTube video?

2. Did Susan Rice make this media tour AFTER e-mails were sent (from intelligence sources) and received (by the WH) stating it was a terrorist attack?

If you answered Yes to both questions, it is a cover-up and lie. Next questions.

3. Was Obama aware of the false information being stated by Susan Rice?

4. Did Hillary Clinton take the blame to reduce exposure on Obama during a critical time in the election?

If you answered "Yes" to both questions 3 and 4 then you are not a drone.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       11-16-2012, 2:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeboardingdad View Post
These questions will require only a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

1. Did Susan Rice make a media tour, stating the Benghazi incident was in response to a YouTube video?

2. Did Susan Rice make this media tour AFTER e-mails were sent (from intelligence sources) and received (by the WH) stating it was a terrorist attack?

If you answered Yes to both questions, it is a cover-up and lie. Next questions.

3. Was Obama aware of the false information being stated by Susan Rice?

4. Did Hillary Clinton take the blame to reduce exposure on Obama during a critical time in the election?

If you answered "Yes" to both questions 3 and 4 then you are not a drone.
Question 2.5 is whether the UN ambassador is expected to have digested every bit of intelligence that the Admin may have had from all sources? In the same way that Colin Powell presented what he had re WMD in Iraq (which turned out to be just plain wrong), I'm not sure we should be shooting the messenger here.

Question 5 is so what? Assume all that's true... should something "happen?"
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-16-2012, 2:28 PM Reply   
It's defintely a coverup. And here's one possibility...

Looks like some conspiracy between the CIA and the adminstration to deceive the people into believing that we didn't know Al Qaeda was involved. Perhaps that sneaky bastard Obama thought that it might help intellegence gathering to throw AQ off guard. Fortunately for Al Qaeda, Fox News and the Republican officials have AQ's back and blow the whistle on such a devious plan.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       11-16-2012, 3:16 PM Reply   
Except AQ claimed responsibility instantly.
Old    Terry Redfearn (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       11-16-2012, 3:16 PM Reply   
it is very likely the FBI had the information about the affair.

The information makes the CIA Director a potential subject of blackmail

The CIA Director testifies to Congress that the attack was over the video. An obvious lie that benifited O'bama

Did the WH use the information gained by the FBI to balckmail the Director of the C IA?

This is problematic whether it is Obama and Benghazi or misinfo to Powell regarding WMD.

Susan Rice should not be shot for being the messager nor should she be rewarded following her being used as a stooge.

I would not agree with John's assessment. but, we need to know. the answers would be nice

If not for Fox news we wouldn't know what we now know about Benghazi. We can be just a thankful for the alphabet channels for exposing Rep. as we can Foxnews exposing Dems. Don't we the people win both ways?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-16-2012, 3:29 PM Reply   
We need to embed Fox News with the CIA to make sure that there are no secrets. Might as well throw in some Al Jezeera staff as well just in case the terrorists don't watch enough Fox.
Old     (Truekaotik)      Join Date: Jun 2012       11-16-2012, 4:26 PM Reply   
I'm neither party... But this stinks and it's slowly coming to light some of what's going on.. It troubles me John that your such a "drone" that you can't see some evidence in front of you that is truth and published on many different channels... I'm not saying its a "conspiracy", I'm saying the WH stinks of this aftermath and has proved it with false report after false report, again on "the alphabet channels" ( that's funny and I'm gonna use it) you live your life by... I listen to every accusation, every misconstrued attempts, snopes, all news.. It Stinks to think our politicians play games against each other but it would be dropped if there wasn't anything to it.. This is getting serious and hopefully someone will be held accountable... That is my non political view, call me crazy but I don't wear tin hats nor lick the butt of the president.... He works for the people... Have you forgot that ideology working your way thru the ranks of power? You know power makes people feel above the law? It's a proven fact as well you'll prolly want to contest....

This post wasn't meant to attack you but, maybe, let us see your point besides your condescending replies making fun of Americans that just want the truth and accountability for several Americans dying across seas and all we see from our leader and his aids is finger pointing and pass offs...

Last edited by Truekaotik; 11-16-2012 at 4:29 PM.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-16-2012, 4:34 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryR View Post
We were lied to about Benghazi, without a doubt.
...
McCain skipped the WH news conferrence because he is not going to be lied to any more. He has made up his mind that a bipartisan investigation is in order. He wants to hear testimony not spin....
And I guess McCain told you this personally?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-16-2012, 4:38 PM Reply   
A recent McCain quote:

“She’s not qualified. Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.”

This coming from the guy that had Palin as a running mate??
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       11-16-2012, 5:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truekaotik View Post
This post wasn't meant to attack you but, maybe, let us see your point besides your condescending replies making fun of Americans that just want the truth and accountability for several Americans dying across seas and all we see from our leader and his aids is finger pointing and pass offs...
We already know the answer to this. Lack of enough security personnel to ensure the embassy was defensible. Stevens had previously requested more security but didn't get it before the attack. Not sure what you mean by finger pointing. Even Patraeus testified that exact people/groups involved are not yet known. Even if Bush was still President, as much as I dislike him I'd be expressing the same opinion.
Old     (Truekaotik)      Join Date: Jun 2012       11-16-2012, 6:02 PM Reply   
But it was known that it wasn't a video within two hours per his testimony and yet the president lies to the people who entrusted him to run the country? I guess honesty isn't a strong suit for you to wear? he can't even admit that to this day.. It's everywhere? And I don't care if the president was purple, democrat, republican, ect.. He works for us and is mainly voted in for morals.. Where did his go? What is happening to politics these days? It's getting out of control.. Blast me all you want, I'm not into politics so you can degrade me all you want for it..
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       11-16-2012, 8:39 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Question 2.5 is whether the UN ambassador is expected to have digested every bit of intelligence that the Admin may have had from all sources? In the same way that Colin Powell presented what he had re WMD in Iraq (which turned out to be just plain wrong), I'm not sure we should be shooting the messenger here.

Question 5 is so what? Assume all that's true... should something "happen?"
Shawn, if she is the Ambassador to the UN and goes on a info tour, then she should have read what was available instead of just regurgitating what she was told. But she was a good dog and did as she was told and the WH hoped we'd all believe it. Then, when things weren't going like they has hoped, the WH needed another fall guy. Enter Hillary. Someone is at fault.

As for the WMDs, we all turn a blind eye to what we don't want to believe is so. However, if we are so stupid and blind then why did so many dems also vote to go to war? I'll answer that by saying that there was enough proof which led many to believe that WMDs did exist. It took quite some time for the WMD accusations to become false. However, in the case of Benghazi, it only took a matter of hours or days. I wish there had been a vote so that a bi-partisan decision could have been made to rescue the embassy personnel or just let them burn. That way Republicans may have also been to blame. But that is not the case. The WH is squarely to blame for the screw up and someone needs to be held accountable or the truth told why they were allowed to die, without any rescue attempt, and we were lied to about some insignificant video.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       11-17-2012, 5:13 AM Reply   
Quote:
I'll answer that by saying that there was enough proof which led many to believe that WMDs did exist. It took quite some time for the WMD accusations to become false.
For the record, WMD did exist. We gave them to Saddam and he used them on more than one occasion. The UN documented destroying many of them after the first gulf war, but were kicked out before they completed the work. The WMD were found when we went in, however, they were all expired and harmless due to a mix of shelf life and incorrect storage after trying to hide them.

Powell being wrong about the state of a known weapon is a little different than lying about the motives of this act.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:35 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us